Loading...
CHA 09/26/2005 1 TO: Charter Commission Members FROM: Deb Skogen, City Clerk and Staff Liaison Date: September 20, 2005 CITY OF Re: Charter Meeting FRIDLEY Reminder: The Charter Commission created a new policy for members to follow regarding attendance at meetings. If you plan on attending the meeting, call or e-mail me before 8:00 a.m. Monday, September 26th If a commissioner has not called or e-mailed by 8:00 a.m., Monday, September 26th, it will be assumed they will not be attending the meeting. If there will be a quorum, based on the number of a meeting will be held, but Commissioners will not be called. If there will not be a quorum,those Commissioners who called will receive a r ■ phone call notifying them there will not a quorum and the meeting will be cancelled. A notice will then be placed on the door of the cancellation of the meeting for those commissioners who did not call, but came to the meeting. Attached please find your agenda for the September 26th meeting and the draft of the minutes from the July 18th meeting. Deb Phone: 763-572-3523 e-mail: skogend @ci.fridley.mn.us n CITY OF FRIDLEY '--. CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Room 1 (Lower Level) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 18,2005 3. Administrative Matters 4. Mission Statement 5. Update on City Council Proposed Charter Amendment 6. Discussion of Future Items A. Mail Ballot of Special Elections 7. Adjournment Next regular meeting: Monday, October 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room 1 in the Lower Level n CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18,2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jorgenson called the Charter Commission meeting to order at 7:04 .m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Peter Borman,Gary Braam,Don Findell,Anita Gerrity,Bill Holm,Nancy Jorgenson, Kathleen Linder,Pam Reynolds,Cindy Soule and Francis Van Dan Members Absent: Char Fitzpatrick,Craig Gordon,Carol Hoiby and Janet Johnson Others Present: Deb Skogen,City Clerk/Staff Liaison Richard Pribyl,Finance Director Scott Lund,Mayor Peter Eisenzimmer,6535 Oakley Drive,Fridley,MN 55432 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Commissioner Borman MOVED and Commissioner Braam seconded a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Findell noted that the Commission would be approving the May 23,2005 meeting minutes not the April 25th minutes and it was agreed the meeting date would be changed. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,CHAIRPERSON JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MAY 23,2005,CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES: Commissioner Borman MOVED and Commissioner Gerrity seconded a motion to approve the May 23,2005, Charter Commission Minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,CHAIRPERSON JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Ms. Skogen noted that there is one vacancy at the current time. 2. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT Chairperson Jorgenson had invited Mayor Scott Lund to the meeting to provide the City Council's perspective on the proposed ordinance. She said that the Charter Commission meeting would end its discussions at 8:30 p.m.and that if the Commission could not make a recommendation,the next meeting would be held on August 1st at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Lund said State law requires the Charter Commission to make a recommendation to the City council regarding their proposed amendment to Chapter 7 of the City Charter to help move the issue forward. He said that Chapter 7 was amended as a result of a petition. He said that the water,storm water and sewer enterprise funds were DRAFT CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18,2005 PAGE 2 n losing money,and not as a result of any inefficiency of the staff or city council. Mayor Lund described the enterprise funds stating the 2006 proposed deficit and the total deficits over the past three or four years: Fund 2006 Deficit Overall Deficit Water ($200,000) ($724,000) Storm Water ($10,000) ($154,000) Sewer ($168,000) ($280,000) Mayor Lund noted the reserves had been set aside in the enterprise funds over the past 50 years to help pay for the replacement of the infrastructure,replace of equipment or capital improvements. If the city continued the same practice it has for the past three or four years,the city would most likely run out of the reserves and would have to borrow to complete any capital improvements. Rick Pribyl,estimated the city's enterprise reserves could possibly be depleted in 12 to 13 years;and the general fund in 4 to 5 years, if the city continued to use the same practices. He said we may even see increases to the charges due to increased federal or state mandates along with increased costs to the Metropolitan Council on Environmental Services(MCES). He said currently 73%of the charge to customers of the sewer portion of their utility bill goes directly to MCES and that the city receives about 27%to maintain the system. He said while the Charter restricts the rate increase by 5%or the rate of inflation,whichever is lower,increases from the state and others have been in the double digits. Mr.Pribyl said they could not take money from the general fund to pay for the utilities. Mayor Lund said the city was very prudent to have saved money for replacement of its infrastructure. He said by exhausting the reserves the city would have to borrow money by bonding to pay for any improvements,which would increase everyone's taxes. Chairperson Jorgenson wondered about the closed bond fund. Mr.Pribyl said the closed bond fund had already been used by transferring about$2 million over the past four or five years to the general fund and was transferring an additional$250,000 to the 2006 general fund. He said those funds are usually set aside and put in separate funds to pay for capital improvements for possible catastrophic needs. He said the city receives property taxes from the state twice a year,or every six months and the city would need to have six months worth of savings to pay their bills. Commissioner Van Dan asked how the Marion Hills standpipe would be paid for when it was replaced,as City Engineer Jon Haukaas had said in 2004 that it needed to be repaired or replaced. Mayor Lund said the standpipe had been replaced and had been paid for out of the water fund reserves,as it was intended to do. He said other entities like corporations or tax exempt properties are receiving those benefits at the expense of the taxpayers helping to offset the fees as well. Mayor Lund reminded each Commissioner they were here to decide about the city council proposed Charter amendment. He said some might say voters spoke very clearly to restrict taxation,but they may not have meant to restrict the enterprise funds,which has resulted due to the amendment to the Charter as a result of the 2000 petition. Commissioner Soule wondered why people were paying a fee on their water bill rather than a rate,as expressed in Chapter 11 which states the rates that may be charged for utility services. Mayor Lund said that the restriction of 2000 had caused the utilities to be included as a fee but wondered whether or not the intent was to include utility fees in the original petition that was approved. Commissioner Soule said a rate was different than a fee. Commissioner Borman said Chapter 7 does not say rate,it says utility charges. He said you could go back to Chapter 11 and say the City can increase its rates,but that Chapter 7 restricts the increase in the rate. DRAFT CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18,2005 PAGE 3 Mayor Lund said there was a lot of discussion in the ad hoc group and that the council was looking for clarification now. Commissioner Holm said Chapter 11 allows the city to set rates,but Chapter 7 says you can only increase the rates by the rate of inflation or 5%,whichever is less. He did not think it was in conflict and that it was very explicit in that it included utility charges. Commissioner Van Dan felt it was important,like Representative Krinkie,to have a glossary and define what certain types of words meant. She said if the Commissioners could not understand the meaning,how could an ordinary citizen understand. Water is a commodity which the city sells,it is not a fee,charge or rate. Commissioner Van Dan said that no one can ask the City to lose money or make a profit in providing the service,only that they recoup their expenses. Commissioner Van Dan felt the Council should enact laws that could be enforceable and claimed election fraud occurred when the charter was changed by the ad hoc committee. Chairperson Jorgenson said there was an ad hoc task force that met,of which she and Commissioner Van Dan were on,who made a recommendation to the Charter Commission,who in turn recommended an amendment by ordinance to the City Council. Commissioner Holm agreed the ad hoc committee recommended an amendment by ordinance to the Charter commission which went to the City Council for its adoption. Commissioner Braam said the City Council sent language to the Charter Commission and asked for the Commission's recommendation. He agreed there was a problem and that it needed to be fixed because the city was losing money and it was now up to the Charter commissioner to make a recommendation to the council on their proposed amendment by ordinance. Commissioner Braam MOVED and Commissioner Holm seconded a motion to recommend supporting the ordinance as written to the city council. Commissioner Gerrity wondered if there was a way to change the wording so people knew it would be used strictly for water services only. Chairperson Jorgenson wondered how in 2001 the city council could not adopt a resolution requiring a special election allowing the citizens to vote on an increase in the rates and that now they could have a special election to amend the Charter. Ms. Skogen said the increase in the water rates was governed by the City Charter which expressly states next general election whereas the charter amendment is governed by state law,thereby allowing a special election. Commissioner Reynolds said she had found an Attorney General opinion about a case in Breckenridge,stating they could charge what they thought was reasonable and put any extra back into the general fund. She thought Fridley should have a Public Utilities Commission(PUC)to regulate the rates. Commissioner Reynolds also said there was a cable committee at one time,that there no longer is a committee and that one of the councilmembers was appointed to help mediate the cable franchise. She wondered what happened to the cable committee and why there was no PUC. She wondered if an amendment would be necessary if there was a PUC. Mayor Lund felt the discussion of the cable committee was non germane for this discussion and that it could be discussed at another time. Commissioner Findell felt Section 11.07.2 limited the Council's ability to make revenue to transfer funds to other accounts and read that section. Commissioner Van Dan said she could not support the amendment as submitted to the Charter Commission. She felt the Charter was a work in progress and the Charter Commission should review the whole charter and define the verbiage so that it was consistent throughout the Charter. DRAFT CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18,2005 PAGE 4 Commissioner Borman wondered how going through the whole charter helped fix the problem the City had now. Mayor Lund said they were trying to keep it simple so they are not accused of doing something underhanded or so confusing to allow the Charter language to change. Chairperson Jorgenson said the petition committee initiated the change due to the franchise fees adopted on gas and electric. She felt the biggest problem this year was there wasn't a public hearing held for the public to address the issue and the first reading was passed very late in the evening. She wondered how the City was going to get the information out to the public. Mayor Lund said the city would do everything it could within the campaign laws to educate the voters by using cable,the city newsletter,and hopefully the Fridley Sun-Focus. He said the city could not use taxpayer money to influence the voters,but it could be used to educate people about the issue. Commissioner Van Dan said the city council might consider leaving Chapter 7 alone and adopting a separate ordinance stating water is a commodity and not subject to Chapter 7. Commissioner Holm disagreed and said it was still a utility. Mayor Lund did not think it was the right thing to do. He said there was a problem as part of the outcome of the restrictions and understood the people did not want to give any power to the city council. He said the city had one of the lowest rates around and the city was not trying to get additional money. Commissioner Reynolds was not sure you could create an ordinance that would be in conflict with the Charter. n Commissioner Findell said that utility fee was added after the fact and was not part of the original petition language of 2000. He agreed it should be voted on this year and liked the language in Section 3 of the ordinance. Commissioner Soule asked if it was too much power to give to the city council in Chapter 11 to allow them to adjust the rates so they are just and reasonable. Mayor Lund said there was a difference of opinion on what was reasonable and the city would have to research the issue and possibly have a rate study done. Commissioner Reynolds asked what the first increase might be if the ordinance was adopted and whether or not the city took into consideration how much money went to the Met Council,why their fees were so high and what they did with the money. Mayor Lund said those were all good questions. He said the city has lost revenue in the double digits but had not determined what the increase would be and that it would be good for citizens to question and research what and why the MCES needs that much money to operate the services they provide. Mr.Pribyl said a study of 33 cities showed Fridley was the 3`d lowest in utility rates. He said if an increase was made it would be phased in over time and would not be a double digit increase in the first year. Mayor Lund said historically Fridley always had low fees and he could not ask other citizens do pay any more than he would be willing to pay because he was a citizen here as well. Commissioner Gerrity asked if the motion was approved and sent back to the City Council,whether or not the City Council intended to go forward to increase the rates. Mayor Lund said if the voters approved the amendment, increases would be in incremental stages to get the funds to the position where they break even and not to make money. DRAFT CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18,2005 PAGE 5 n Commissioner Gerrity asked if the rates for the services were for the services that are actually used. Mayor Lund said it was the cost of the service,plus a small portion of which would go into the enterprise fmd so the city would not have to bond for their capital improvements. Commissioner Braam also asked if they knew what the increase would be and Mr. Pribyl said that the increase would be enough to allow the city to break even and not to make money. Commissioner Findell felt the city council should have the authority to determine how to run a business financially and keep it fmancially stable. He said he does not intend to micromanage the city council but would rather elect a representative that would take that responsibility. Commissioner Braam said the city council might be able to sell the amendment by agreeing not to increase the rates by double digits. Mayor Lund said that he would take that message to the city council. Chairperson Jorgenson asked Mr.Pribyl if the increase they were going to send to the voters in 2001 was 9%. Mr. Pribyl stated that the needed increase was more like 12%but it was determined not to have a double digit increase. She then asked Mayor Lund if the Chamber of Commerce was aware of the proposed amendment and possible increase in fees and Mayor Lund said yes they knew and were in agreement that it was necessary. Commissioner Borman asked if the enterprise funds could transfer money into the general fund. Mr.Pribyl said that money could be moved if the city council adopted a resolution. He stated that with most funds with the exception of bond debt money could be moved this way. Mr.Pribyl said in the 24 years he has been with the city,he had not seen any operating transfers from the utility funds to the general fund,only from the liquor fund. Mayor Lund said that Moody's has noted the city carries the highest rating it can,but has placed the city on a watch list due to the decreasing reserves. If we lose this rating rating,it will cause our interest rate to rise and then everyone more money. Chairperson Jorgenson noted the 2006 general fund revenue showed$7,943,821 being received from property taxes, yet the budget was$13,000,000. Mayor Lund said 61%of the general fund revenues comes from property taxes and that the remainder of the funds come from different sources like the liquor fund,intergovernmental transfers,and permit fees. Commissioner Soule called the question on Commissioner Braam's motion and Commissioner Findell seconded the call. Commissioner Van Dan requested a roll call vote. Commissioners Borman,Braam,Findell,Gerrity,Holm, Jorgenson,Linder and Soule voted aye;Commissioners Reynolds and Van Dan voted nay. THE MOTION PASSED ON AN 8-2 VOTE. Mayor Lund said he would like to work with those Commissioners who said no to the motion. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Braam MOVED and Commissioner Findell seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE,CHAIRPERSON JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Skogen, Kathleen Linder, Secretary City Clerk/Staff Liaison DRAFT Fridley Charter Commission Mission Statement Adopted May 23, 2005 The Fridley home rule charter is the fundamental law which defines the powers the citizens agree to give their city government. The Charter Commission is comprised of court appointed citizens under Minnesota state law. The Commission, in response to the needs of the community or state legislature, discusses and refines the charter. Changes to the charter can also be initiated by the citizens. MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL & CITY MANAGER FROM: FRITZ KNAAK, CITY ATTORNEY RE: SEWER AND WATER CHARGE BALLOT QUESTION DATE: July 22, 2005 The proposal to place a charter amendment on the ballot was formally addressed by the City Council when it passed a first reading of the attached ordinance on June 13, 2005. The purpose of the amendment would be to permit the City to increase charges for sewer, water and storm water utility costs at a rate greater than inflation or five percent without need of obtaining city voter approval in a special election. Those costs have been rising at a consistently higher rate than the capped amount provided for in the City charter. The ordinance language has now been reviewed and approved by the Charter Commission. The second reading of the Ordinance would, if passed by the Council, place the amendment on the ballot this fall. It is set for the Council agenda on July 25, 2005. One reason given for the failure of the effort to obtain this amendment in the last election was that the length of the ballot, and the wording of the question itself, were confusing to the voters. Since the process now being used to place the issue on the fall ballot is the Council's initiative, by ordinance, the Council does have the opportunity to amend the ordinance to clarify the ballot question if it sees fit. The legal restrictions on the nature of the ballot question are narrow, and clearly give the council considerable leeway. Minn. Stat. §410.12, Subd. 44 gives the following general directive: "The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time." This language plainly givens the City Council full discretion to fix the "form" of the ballot question, as well as to reasonably determine a"sufficient" statement of the question.. Obviously, the more complete the question is on the ballot,the less likely any challenge as to its "sufficiency" and clarity would be successful, if challenged afterwards in court. What authority there is on how complete the language must be exist in the form of several older Attorney General opinions. What is clear from these is that the City has a good deal of discretion in creating the language of a ballot question that is clear and understandable. Moreover, in the case of particularly lengthy or complex ballot issues related to charter amendments, succinct summarization is permitted. See: Op.Atty.Gen., 58-I,Nov. 16, 1951; Op.Atty.Gen., 58-1,July 8, 1948. After the passage of the first reading language, staff was directed to determine if clearer and shorter ballot language was possible. The City Manager drafted a short, clear version, which served as a template for further work and suggestions. After further discussion and feedback with and from the staff, I have put together the following language to use as a basis for further discussion by the Council, if it finds it necessary to revise or amend the ordinance during second reading: "Shall the Fridley City Charter be amended so as to permit water, sewer and storm water utility charges to increase with costs annually above the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5% without calling a special election? Yes No. By voting `yes' on this amendment, you may increase the actual amount of sewer, water or storm water fees you are paying directly to the City, but would reduce the amount of general reserve fund subsidy now being provided to larger water and sewer users in the City. This amendment would require adding to the language of the Fridley City Charter as follows: Section 7.02 POWER OF TAXATION 3. Any other fees created or increased beyond the limits set for in subsection 1, shall require voter approval... A. For the purposes of the subsection, "fees" includes sales and use taxes, utility charges, (other than water, storm water and sanitary sewer sales charges)... B. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "fees" does not include: Water, storm water and sanitary sewer sales charges..." Once passed, the ordinance would then set in motion the process of placing the matter on the ballot in the fall in the form provided by the ordinance finally passed. ORDINANCE NO. 1206 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 7. TAXATION AND FINANCES, SECTION 7.02.3.A. & B. PERTAINING TO UTILITY FEES SECTION 1. The Fridley City Council hereby finds the following: That in 2000, a successful initiative petition proposing an amendment to the Fridley City Charter requiring voter approval for tax increases beyond specified inflationary adjustments, or to create, expand or increase various fees was received and placed on the November 7, 2000, municipal election ballot. The question was approved by the voters by 57% of all people voting in the election. In an attempt to remedy confusing language contained in the amendment and potentially dangerous and costly problems for the City, an ad hoc work group met and formulated an ordinance designed to correct the language contained within the amendment. The ordinance was reviewed by the City Charter Commission and recommended to the City Council for adoption. The ordinance was approved April 9, 2001. That in 2004, due to the City's increased costs in providing the sanitary sewer, storm water and water sales to its customers, it was found that an unintended consequence to the City had been created by the amendment by not allowing the City to recover its full costs for providing sanitary sewer, storm water and water sales. The Charter Commission recommended adoption of an n ordinance removing utility fees from Section 7.03.A. of the City Charter as a defined fee that could not be increased above 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. The City Council adopted the ordinance; however, a successful Referendum Petition requesting withdrawal of the ordinance was received and placed on the November municipal election ballot. The question approving the ordinance failed and the ordinance did not become effective. During the 2006 budget preparation and planning it was determined that sanitary sewer, storm water and water costs continue to increase due to a number of outside factors beyond the control of the city. Some of these factors include federal mandates imposing increasingly higher standards for water and sewer, higher sewage disposal charges imposed by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services agency, and ongoing repairs and maintenance of the system's infrastructure. The City Council sent a Survey to all current city commissioners to query their thoughts about utility rates. There was overwhelming agreement that the charter should be amended to allow the city to recover its costs for sanitary sewer, storm water and water sales. That a proposed charter amendment will help eliminate potential for long term subsidy of sanitary sewer, storm water and water deficits; provide cost recovery for federal or state mandates; and maintain all other spending restrictions which requires city council to obtain direct voter approval for programs that increase costs above 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. SECTION 2. That Chapter 5, Section 5.09 of the Fridley City Charter states that, "The ways to initiate amendments to this Charter are set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Minnesota Statutes Chapter Ordinance No. 1206 Page 2 410.12, subd. 5, allows for the city council to propose an amendment to the voters by ordinance. This ordinance shall be submitted to the charter commission for review. After the charter commission completes its review and notifies the city council of its recommendation,the city council may submit it to the people. SECTION 3. That the Fridley City Council hereby ordains that the Fridley City Charter be amended and that a Special Election be held in the City of Fridley on November 8,2005,to allow the people to vote on the following question: Shall the Fridley Charter be amended so as to permit water,sewer and storm water charges above the rate of inflation without the passage of a referendum for each such increase? O Yes O No SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall cause notice of said election to be given to the Anoka County Auditor within 53 days of said election and that notice of said election be published in the official newspaper of the City for at least three weeks prior to said election; and That the City Council ordains that the election shall be held at the usual polling locations for the state general election, as set forth in Exhibit"A,"and that said election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the Minnesota State Statutes applicable to municipal elections and the provisions of the Home Rule Charter; and That the City Council shall meet within seven days from said election as required by law for the purpose of canvassing said election and declaring the results thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 25th DAY OF JULY 2005. Scott J. Lund, Mayor ATTEST Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk First Reading: June 13, 2005 Charter Commission Review: July 18, 2005 Second Reading: July 25, 2005 Publication: August 4, 2005 Ordinance No. 1206 Page 3 Exhibit A Polling Locations WARD 1 PRECINCT 1 Grace Evangelical Free Church 755 73rd Avenue Northeast WARD 1 PRECINCT 2 Hayes Elementary School 615 Mississippi Street Northeast WARD 1 PRECINCT 3 Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue Northeast WARD 1 PRECINCT 4 Fridley Community Center 6085 7th Street NE WARD 2 PRECINCT 1 Woodcrest Elementary School 880 Osborne Road Northeast WARD 2 PRECINCT 2 Knights of Columbus 6831 Highway#65 Northeast WARD 2 PRECINCT 3 St.Philip's Lutheran Church 6180 Highway#65 Northeast WARD 2 PRECINCT 4 North Park School—Gym 1 5575 Fillmore Street Northeast WARD 2 PRECINCT 5 North Park School—Gym 2 5575 Fillmore Street Northeast WARD 3 PRECINCT 1 Springbrook Nature Center 100 85th Avenue Northeast WARD 3 PRECINCT 2 Redeemer Lutheran Church /"• 61 Mississippi Way Northeast WARD 3 PRECINCT 3 Stevenson Elementary School 6080 East River Road WARD 3 PRECINCT 4 Fridley Covenant Church 6390 University Avenue Northeast Minnesota Statutes 2004, 204B.46 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 204B 204B.46 Mail elections; questions. A county, municipality, or school district submitting questions to the voters at a special election may apply to the county auditor for approval of an election by mail with no polling place other than the office of the auditor or clerk. No more than two questions may be submitted at a mail election and no offices may be voted on. Notice of the election and the special mail procedure must be given at least six weeks prior to the election. No earlier than 20 or later than 14 days prior to the election, the auditor or clerk shall mail ballots by nonforwardable mail to all voters registered in the county, municipality, or school district. Eligible voters not registered at the time the ballots are mailed may apply for ballots pursuant to chapter 203B. HIST: 1987 c 213 s 1; 1989 c 291 art 1 s 11; 1993 c 223 s 11 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. . • http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/204B/46.html 9/20/2005 Page 1 of 1 Skogen, Deb From: Kurt Hoffman [KHoffman @ci.plymouth.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:32 AM To: Skogen, Deb Subject: Plymouth Charter on Special Elections Also attached is a history of the Charter Commission's work on the amendment. Section 4.03. Special elections. The council may by resolution order a special election as provided by law and establish the procedures for holding the election. The procedures at a special election must conform to that prescribed by this charter and law. Special elections not held in conjunction with a general election shall be conducted by mailed ballot if allowed by law. (Amendment#8; 11/7/2000) ■ ' 9/20/2005 History on the Mail Ballot and Special Election Issue This issue was initiated by a letter from Christian Preus to Bob Sipkins in July 1998, following a City election on funding for an activity center and field house. Mr. Preus suggested that the Charter Commission consider possible amendments to the charter relating to bond referendums submitted to Plymouth voters for approval. The specific concerns were: • the date selected for the election(May 19) • the extremely low voter turnout(6%) • the extremely small margin by which the referendum passed (51% yes; 49%no). Staff researched and provided information on mail ballot elections, Saturday voting, and voter turnout statistics. The Charter Commission reviewed this information and established a subcommittee to study the issue of timing and format of special elections. The subcommittee met on two occasions and recommended that the Charter Commission should suggest to the City Council that elections on issues such as bond referendums be held in conjunction with general elections. However, if circumstances dictate a special election, the Charter Commission should recommend that the City Council hold mail ballot election to obtain the highest possible voter participation. The Charter Commission received the subcommittee report and subsequently recommended to the City Council a proposed charter amendment which would require mail ballot for any special election for a bond issue or other expenditure of funds, when not held at a regularly scheduled election. The City Council received the Charter Commission recommendation on August 3, 1999. The Council did not support the proposal as submitted, but unanimously voted to continue a dialog with the Charter Commission on ways to improve voter turnout in special elections. The composition of the Charter Commission changed, and Chairperson Sipkins suggested that the Charter Commission revisit the issue to determine if the recommendation remained unchanged prior to further discussions with the City Council. The Charter Commission discussed the issue with the City Council at a joint meeting and subsequently reaffirmed its support of the charter amendment. On March 30, 2000, the Charter Commission voted to include on the November General Election ballot a question on the following issue: Special elections not held in conjunction with a general election shall be conducted by mailed ballot if allowed by law." At a study session on May 16, the City Council discussed whether a compromise, similar to the super-majority issue relating to tax rate increases, may be possible. On May 23, 2000, the Council reviewed a draft ordinance which would propose a charter amendment allowing the City Council to adopt an ordinance requiring mailed ballot for special •-■ elections not held on regular election days. The ordinance also included a provision that the Council cannot repeal the ordinance until after a public hearing is held and the effective date would be February 1 following the next local election. This ordinance language was approved by the City Council and forwarded to the Charter Commission for review and consideration. The City Council did not officially initiate a charter amendment by adopting an ordinance. The Charter Commission held a special meeting on June 22 to consider the compromise proposal. Following discussion, the Commission voted 8 to 4 to reject the Council's proposal. On July 25, the proposed Charter amendment language was placed on the City Council agenda for Council action in fixing the form of the ballot.